While the University of Oregon was on summer break, 11 students were issued several student conduct code charges, months after the pro-Palestine encampment.

After nearly a month of demonstrations, the UO Coalition for Palestine encampment came to an end in late May after an agreement was reached between the coalition and UO administration.  

Students were not charged based on their involvement with the encampment, but on activities that “violated the student conduct code,” according to Eric Howald, UO spokesperson.

“Student conduct charges were made against 11 students based on activities that violated the student conduct code,” Howald said. “These behaviors include disruptive behavior, damage and/or destruction, unauthorized access or use and violation of university policy.” 

A commitment in the agreement said that individual students who did violate the campus policies of overnight camping, utilizing space without reservations and improper use of amplified sound would be referred to the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards.

The agreement also said that ending the encampment would be used as “favorable mitigating factors” in the resolution of these violations.

In a social media post, the coalition released a statement in response to the charges, saying that three students that were charged were “directly involved in implementing” the agreement. 

According to a representative of the coalition who wished to not disclose their name due to the ongoing charges, the charges highlighted events that occurred “during and after the encampment.” 

“There were a few events that were cited during the encampment—the ‘catastrophe’ of the Nakba on May 15 and the ‘100 Hours in Chains’ rally on May 20,” they said. “There were also two events that happened after the encampment — one of which was the demonstration at [UO President John] Karl Scholz’s investiture and the other [was] a rally at the Prefontaine [Classic] track event.” 

Howald said the charges “were related to incidents that occurred before and after the negotiated agreement was signed.”

He said that five students were charged with “chalking.” Scott Lambert, a member of the Graduate Teaching Fellows Federation, said that among the five charged was a graduate student. 

With the university’s decision to issue student conduct code charges, the coalition said in the social media post that the decision “violates” the agreement. 

According to the representative, the coalition had an understanding that the agreement would bring “amnesty” to any student who participated in encampment activities. 

“The understanding that came to agreement was that students would not face any consequences for their participation in encampment activities, which obviously includes marches, rallies, protests, etc.,” the representative said.

Gerard Sandoval, the former president of UO Senate who helped implement the agreement, said he was also under the impression that students would not face consequences for violating the student conduct code.

“I would say that while we negotiated [the agreement], there was an informal understanding that there weren’t going to be any student misconduct repercussions based on the encampment because of this [agreement],” Sandoval said. 

The agreement said students would not “face adverse action” for “protected speech activities.” 

“No […] faculty, staff, graduate students or alumni undergraduate students – found to have been present at the encampment or involved with related encampment activity will face adverse action as a result of their participation in protected speech activities,” the agreement said. 

Both Howald and Sandoval said the agreement was not considered an “amnesty agreement,” which was unknown to the coalition.

“The university only agreed that the removal of the camp would be taken into consideration when looking at some student conduct violations [overnight camping, utilizing space without a reservation, improper use of amplified sound],” Howald said.

Lambert called the agreement “incredibly weak.” 

“Unfortunately, it doesn’t contain anything binding, and the university is milking that to the greatest possible extent that it can to target protesters who were involved in the encampment,” Lambert said.  

The coalition representative said the university chose “to single out these 11 students” because they were present at Scholz’s investiture, where pro-Palestine protesters interrupted the ceremony and vandalized a statue of the Duck. 

“The vast majority of students who received notices were present at the investiture of Scholz, which was a relatively smaller event relative to most of the protests that happened but [it was] much more personal to the president,” they said.

Presence O’Neal, president of GTFF, said that students were “target[ed]” based on sharing their names at the UO Board of Trustees meeting. 

“The university has actually been quite clear that the reason these 11 students were given code of conduct violations is because they shared their names at a public Board of Trustees meeting,” O’Neal said. “It’s very concerning…for the administration to then use that space to surveil students, collecting their information to use later on when they decide that they want to target students based on their speech acts, like chalking.” 

According to Howald, students who chose to attend the board meeting shared their names in a public setting. 

“Student identification and supporting documentation is needed to initiate student conduct proceedings,” Howald said. “The students who chose to attend the Board of Trustees meeting shared their names in a public forum.”

Carver Goldstein, a member of GTFF, said the charges are a case of the university violating the freedom of speech and right to assembly.

“They [university] are targeting political speech because they don’t agree with the messaging,” Goldstein said. “I see chalk on campus all the time, but when it’s speech that the university disagrees with, then they target their students.”

Dianne Tanjuaquio, director of student conduct and community standards, said that none of the students were charged for “expressing their right to free speech,” but based on a violation of the student code.

“Expressing a right to free speech doesn’t necessarily mean that you utilize spaces that the university requires that you reserve,” Tranjuaquio said. “We [UO] would never say that a student cannot express their right to free speech, but we have to uphold university policies related to behavior, and we have to address it when that behavior potentially violates the code.” 

In the case of the five students charged with chalking, Howald confirmed that “follow-up letters” were sent indicating that “suspension/expulsion/negative transcript notation would not be considered” in the resolution process.